Gibraltar’s appeal court rejects a charge for intended cannabis supply abroad

A man who carried 737 grams of cannabis resin through Gibraltar for supply in England defeated an attempt to prosecute him there for possession with intent to supply. On 1 June 1995, Gibraltar’s appeal court ruled that the charge required an intended act of supply within Gibraltar.^[1]

A journey from Spain through Gibraltar

Harris entered Gibraltar from Spain with the resin in 140 small packages he had swallowed. He left by air for England the following day, where the drugs were detected and he was arrested.^[1]

After being released on bail, he went to Spain and eventually returned to Gibraltar, surrendering to police. He admitted possession, importation and exportation, but said the intended supply was in England.^[1]

The trial judge removed the separate possession-with-intent-to-supply count. The Attorney-General appealed, arguing that a 1985 amendment had extended the law far enough to cover it.^[1][2]

The amendment targeted the recipient’s location

The 1985 law said that references to supplying a controlled drug included supplying someone outside Gibraltar. According to the judges, the legislature had acted after an earlier cannabis case involving drugs intended for England.^[1][2]

Prosecutors argued that possessing the cannabis in Gibraltar supplied the necessary local connection, even if the planned handover would happen abroad. Harris’s lawyer argued that the law still required the supply itself to occur within Gibraltar.^[1]

The difference was practical. A supplier in Gibraltar could supply a person who happened to be elsewhere; that was different from carrying drugs abroad and supplying them there.^[1]

The judges rejected the prosecution’s reading

All three appeal judges dismissed the prosecution’s appeal. They distinguished the location of the recipient from the location of the act of supply, and held that the amendment had changed the former without removing the latter requirement.^[1]

The result left the disputed supply-intent count removed. Harris’s admissions concerning possession and crossing the border remained part of the case’s facts; the court’s decision addressed the additional charge that the prosecution wanted restored.^[1]

Separate laws addressed drug movements at sea

Earlier that year, Gibraltar had expanded its maritime drug powers, extending offences and enforcement arrangements for Gibraltar-registered ships and ships of other states participating in the trafficking convention.^[3]

The distinction in Harris shows how territorial wording could determine which charge was available, even when cannabis plainly passed through Gibraltar. The old drug Act later gave way to the 2012 criminal code.^[4] Gibraltar’s profile describes the current offences separately from this historical ruling.